6 ms·

The rest of the world is rapidly removing coal while the delusional politicians of Australia are still trying to ramp up the production of it. How many properti

The rest of the world is rapidly removing coal while the delusional politicians of Australia are still trying to ramp up the production of it. How many properties and wildlife would have been saved if Australia had shut down its coal production?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Arbalest 7y ago
I did comment that this may be in reference to the latest bushfires, but thinking about it, our coal industry specifically did not contribute the primary driving force behind them. That may be more incumbent on the global aspect of climate change. So I suppose you're referring to the more direct aspects which have affected people and wildlife over the many years, rather than the elephant in the room.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  The coal industry is a driving force behind climate change which was the primary cause of the bush fires. Of course its not the entire issue so the fires would have still happened but how much lesser would they have been. I don't know but the answer seems to be between somewhat lesser and much lesser.
  - Arbalest 7y ago
    The coal industry globally, yes. The coal industry locally, not so much. I interpreted the way you said it to not be pointing at the fires, otherwise you might have said it straight up when, it's the elephant in the room. The other reason I interpreted it that way, is when you single out the Australian government as continuing to support it when other countries are losing their appetite. The more direct impacts come in polluted waterways, coal mining operations and any other deforestation that resulted from our local coal industry.
    - Arbalest 7y ago
      Which reminds me, perhaps the most effective way to affect climate change would be to stop exports of coal and shut down mining entirely. Assuming that browner coal from other locations isn't too cheap, for overseas power plants.
      - flukus 7y ago
        Or alternately we could increase tariffs on coal exports. We can discourage coal use globally and have a lot of money to pump into renewable energy and it's a lot more palatable to the electorate.
    - coenhyde 7y ago
      "Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, – accounting for 35 per cent of all coal exported" https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/where-does-australias-coal-go-infographic/ https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/where-does-aust... If Australia stopped coal exports, we could have a significant impact on the viability of coal as a fuel source. If we're serious about climate change we could halt coal exports immediately, which would spike the cost of coal and lead to the closure of coal plants already on thin margins. Sounds drastic but maybe not if you consider how little time we have to correct course. We'd need take care of the coal workers. Potentially continue their salaries for a year, then phase it out gradually. There's only $35k workers in the coal industry. Average $100k salary = $3.5 Billion per year. Doable. I don't know what to do with the coal mines and their investors. I'm inclined to say screw them. Let them go bankrupt. But this might hurt investor confidence in Australia ...
      - Arbalest 7y ago
        I suppose I was thinking more about coal burning at the time, and only remembered later (in my other child comment) that we also export a substantial amount of coal. Yet I did not realise that was the scale of our coal exports.
  - Yetanfou 7y ago
    As far as I know there were far larger fires in the 1974–1975 fire season but in those days there was no talk of climate change being a driving factor. In that season 45,000,000 hectares burned in Northern Territory, 29,000,000 in Western Australia, 17,000,000 in Southern Australia and 7,500,000 in Queensland. Going even further back to the 'Black Thursday bushfires' in 1851 saw 5,000,000 ha. burn which caused the death of 1 million sheep - there are no numbers on the death toll among wild animals. The source for these data is a report titled 'National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management', Appendix D 'Fire history in Australia' on page 339-344 [1]. The current fire season has seen about 6,300,000 ha. burn. A difference between the current season and previous seasons is that these latest fires have affected densely populated areas, including holiday destinations. Another important difference - at least in the amount of attention these fires get - is that there were no celebrities driving the cause in 1974-1975, let alone in 1851. Your statement that The coal industry is a driving force behind climate change which was the primary cause of the bush fires is not supported by the previously mentioned report which abstract goes as follows: Bushfires are an inherent part of the Australian environment. We cannot prevent them, but we can minimise the risks they pose to life, property and infrastructure, production systems, and the environment. Australia has a large and very capable force of volunteer and career firefighters, advanced firefighting technologies, and significant firefighting resources. But the geographical scale of our country, the large and expanding rural–urban interface, and the potential for rapid bushfire development and spread under adverse weather conditions mean that individual Australians cannot rely solely on fire agencies to protect their lives and property from bushfires. Bushfires have a fundamental and irreplaceable role in sustaining many of Australia’s natural ecosystems and ecological processes and are a valuable tool for achieving land management objectives.However, if they are too frequent or too infrequent, too severe or too mild, or mistimed, they can erode ecosystem health and biodiversity and compromise other land management goals. We have been learning to live with fire since the first Australians arrived on our continent. We need to continue, and enrich, that learning process in contemporary circumstances and be able to adapt our planning and responses to change.This report seeks to help all Australians meet these challenges. [1] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=scipapers https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&conte...
    - 7y ago
ceejayoz 7y ago
> How many properties and wildlife would have been saved if Australia had shut down its coal production? Zero. Australia's position on coal is absurdly outdated, but even a complete cessation of greenhouse emissions by Australia would've only been a drop in the global bucket at about 1%. They'd still be having these fires even if the entire country ran on unicorn farts since the 1800s.
- danielharan 7y ago
  Australia exports more like 7% of total fossil fuels by CO2, according to this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-third-highest-worldwide/11420654 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    7% of fossil fuel and 7% of overall emissions aren’t the same thing, though.
    - danielharan 7y ago
      It's 7% of emissions caused by fossil fuels, not 7% of the fuels: coal is the worst of them. Australia's emissions are smaller, however they enable much larger emissions elsewhere. Without that coal, India and China would be accelerating their transition to renewables.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > It's 7% of emissions caused by fossil fuels Which is still not the same thing as 7% of global greenhouse emissions. Plenty of non-fossil fuel sources for emissions, like burning trees, cows making methane, etc. Even if Australia were responsible for 7% of global greenhouse emissions, ceasing wouldn't be enough.
        danielharan 7y ago
larnmar 7y ago
As a pretty good estimate, roughly zero? Do you have any proposed mechanism for how Australia’s coal production would lead to increased property losses, aside from the very marginal effect of Australia’s coal production on global warming multiplied by the very marginal effect of global warming on bushfires?
- danielharan 7y ago
  How do you reckon the impact of climate change is marginal?
- everdev 7y ago
  I wonder if fire damage is linear though. For example, 1% higher temperatures or 1% less moisture or 1% higher wind might produce more than 1% additional fire damage when one occurs. There might be a reinforcement effect where a slight change in fire conditions produces much more damage when compounded over the range of the fire. I'm not sure we know the variables well enough to know the exact amount though.
  - danielharan 7y ago
    Thunderstorms and fire tornadoes say your theory is correct: https://qz.com/1779572/how-australias-massive-bushfires-are-generating-thunderstorms/ https://qz.com/1779572/how-australias-massive-bushfires-are-...
    - danielharan 7y ago
      That is a completely relevant article, and anyone downvoting this is just willfully ignorant.
m463 7y ago
There could be an argument made that coal and oil have saved basically every tree in the world (and saved the whales). The book "the rational optimist" discusses how coal curbed deforestation, and oil wells replaced whale oil. Of course now other forms of energy are becoming practical.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Arbalest 7y ago

I did comment that this may be in reference to the latest bushfires, but thinking about it, our coal industry specifically did not contribute the primary driving force behind them. That may be more incumbent on the global aspect of climate change. So I suppose you're referring to the more direct aspects which have affected people and wildlife over the many years, rather than the elephant in the room.

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
The coal industry is a driving force behind climate change which was the primary cause of the bush fires. Of course its not the entire issue so the fires would have still happened but how much lesser would they have been. I don't know but the answer seems to be between somewhat lesser and much lesser.
- Arbalest 7y ago
  The coal industry globally, yes. The coal industry locally, not so much. I interpreted the way you said it to not be pointing at the fires, otherwise you might have said it straight up when, it's the elephant in the room. The other reason I interpreted it that way, is when you single out the Australian government as continuing to support it when other countries are losing their appetite. The more direct impacts come in polluted waterways, coal mining operations and any other deforestation that resulted from our local coal industry.
  - Arbalest 7y ago
    Which reminds me, perhaps the most effective way to affect climate change would be to stop exports of coal and shut down mining entirely. Assuming that browner coal from other locations isn't too cheap, for overseas power plants.
    - flukus 7y ago
      Or alternately we could increase tariffs on coal exports. We can discourage coal use globally and have a lot of money to pump into renewable energy and it's a lot more palatable to the electorate.
  - coenhyde 7y ago
    "Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, – accounting for 35 per cent of all coal exported" https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/where-does-australias-coal-go-infographic/ https://www.australianmining.com.au/features/where-does-aust... If Australia stopped coal exports, we could have a significant impact on the viability of coal as a fuel source. If we're serious about climate change we could halt coal exports immediately, which would spike the cost of coal and lead to the closure of coal plants already on thin margins. Sounds drastic but maybe not if you consider how little time we have to correct course. We'd need take care of the coal workers. Potentially continue their salaries for a year, then phase it out gradually. There's only $35k workers in the coal industry. Average $100k salary = $3.5 Billion per year. Doable. I don't know what to do with the coal mines and their investors. I'm inclined to say screw them. Let them go bankrupt. But this might hurt investor confidence in Australia ...
    - Arbalest 7y ago
      I suppose I was thinking more about coal burning at the time, and only remembered later (in my other child comment) that we also export a substantial amount of coal. Yet I did not realise that was the scale of our coal exports.
- Yetanfou 7y ago
  As far as I know there were far larger fires in the 1974–1975 fire season but in those days there was no talk of climate change being a driving factor. In that season 45,000,000 hectares burned in Northern Territory, 29,000,000 in Western Australia, 17,000,000 in Southern Australia and 7,500,000 in Queensland. Going even further back to the 'Black Thursday bushfires' in 1851 saw 5,000,000 ha. burn which caused the death of 1 million sheep - there are no numbers on the death toll among wild animals. The source for these data is a report titled 'National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management', Appendix D 'Fire history in Australia' on page 339-344 [1]. The current fire season has seen about 6,300,000 ha. burn. A difference between the current season and previous seasons is that these latest fires have affected densely populated areas, including holiday destinations. Another important difference - at least in the amount of attention these fires get - is that there were no celebrities driving the cause in 1974-1975, let alone in 1851. Your statement that The coal industry is a driving force behind climate change which was the primary cause of the bush fires is not supported by the previously mentioned report which abstract goes as follows: Bushfires are an inherent part of the Australian environment. We cannot prevent them, but we can minimise the risks they pose to life, property and infrastructure, production systems, and the environment. Australia has a large and very capable force of volunteer and career firefighters, advanced firefighting technologies, and significant firefighting resources. But the geographical scale of our country, the large and expanding rural–urban interface, and the potential for rapid bushfire development and spread under adverse weather conditions mean that individual Australians cannot rely solely on fire agencies to protect their lives and property from bushfires. Bushfires have a fundamental and irreplaceable role in sustaining many of Australia’s natural ecosystems and ecological processes and are a valuable tool for achieving land management objectives.However, if they are too frequent or too infrequent, too severe or too mild, or mistimed, they can erode ecosystem health and biodiversity and compromise other land management goals. We have been learning to live with fire since the first Australians arrived on our continent. We need to continue, and enrich, that learning process in contemporary circumstances and be able to adapt our planning and responses to change.This report seeks to help all Australians meet these challenges. [1] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=scipapers https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&conte...
  - 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

> How many properties and wildlife would have been saved if Australia had shut down its coal production? Zero. Australia's position on coal is absurdly outdated, but even a complete cessation of greenhouse emissions by Australia would've only been a drop in the global bucket at about 1%. They'd still be having these fires even if the entire country ran on unicorn farts since the 1800s.

danielharan 7y ago
Australia exports more like 7% of total fossil fuels by CO2, according to this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-third-highest-worldwide/11420654 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  7% of fossil fuel and 7% of overall emissions aren’t the same thing, though.
  - danielharan 7y ago
    It's 7% of emissions caused by fossil fuels, not 7% of the fuels: coal is the worst of them. Australia's emissions are smaller, however they enable much larger emissions elsewhere. Without that coal, India and China would be accelerating their transition to renewables.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > It's 7% of emissions caused by fossil fuels Which is still not the same thing as 7% of global greenhouse emissions. Plenty of non-fossil fuel sources for emissions, like burning trees, cows making methane, etc. Even if Australia were responsible for 7% of global greenhouse emissions, ceasing wouldn't be enough.
      - danielharan 7y ago

larnmar 7y ago

As a pretty good estimate, roughly zero? Do you have any proposed mechanism for how Australia’s coal production would lead to increased property losses, aside from the very marginal effect of Australia’s coal production on global warming multiplied by the very marginal effect of global warming on bushfires?

danielharan 7y ago
How do you reckon the impact of climate change is marginal?
everdev 7y ago
I wonder if fire damage is linear though. For example, 1% higher temperatures or 1% less moisture or 1% higher wind might produce more than 1% additional fire damage when one occurs. There might be a reinforcement effect where a slight change in fire conditions produces much more damage when compounded over the range of the fire. I'm not sure we know the variables well enough to know the exact amount though.
- danielharan 7y ago
  Thunderstorms and fire tornadoes say your theory is correct: https://qz.com/1779572/how-australias-massive-bushfires-are-generating-thunderstorms/ https://qz.com/1779572/how-australias-massive-bushfires-are-...
  - danielharan 7y ago
    That is a completely relevant article, and anyone downvoting this is just willfully ignorant.

m463 7y ago

There could be an argument made that coal and oil have saved basically every tree in the world (and saved the whales). The book "the rational optimist" discusses how coal curbed deforestation, and oil wells replaced whale oil. Of course now other forms of energy are becoming practical.